On Wednesday 23 May 2007 04:11, James Knott wrote:
> Tom Miller wrote:
> > The reason that 32bit is faster is it only has to pass around 32
> > bit pointers vs 64 bit pointers.
> > On the other hand, the faster memory handling above 2 GB with 64bit
> > OS makes up the difference .
>
> Given that da
Tom Miller wrote:
>
> The reason that 32bit is faster is it only has to pass around 32 bit
> pointers vs 64 bit pointers.
> On the other hand, the faster memory handling above 2 GB with 64bit OS
> makes up the difference .
>
Given that data is transferred in parallel, that is all bits at the same
Tom Miller wrote:
> Pueblo Native wrote:
>> it seems that almost everybody I've talked to has advised me not to go
>> with the 64 bit version of OpenSuse because there really is no speed
>> advantage (if that's not good advice I'd like to hear otherwise). So
>> then, if there is no speed advantage
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 21:01, Tom Miller wrote:
> ...
>
> Now memory isn't the only factor, but is good enough for this
> discussion.
In large part, memory _is_ the only factor. Or, at least, a very large
one. Memory bandwidth, that is. Processors speed increases have
continued to outstrip that
Pueblo Native wrote:
it seems that almost everybody I've talked to has advised me not to go
with the 64 bit version of OpenSuse because there really is no speed
advantage (if that's not good advice I'd like to hear otherwise). So
then, if there is no speed advantage, what's the point in even hav
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 21:23 -0600, Pueblo Native wrote:
> it seems that almost everybody I've talked to has advised me not to go
> with the 64 bit version of OpenSuse because there really is no speed
> advantage (if that's not good advice I'd like to hear otherwise). So
> then, if there is no spee
On Mon, 14 May 2007 21:23:30 -0600
Pueblo Native <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it seems that almost everybody I've talked to has advised me not to go
> with the 64 bit version of OpenSuse because there really is no speed
> advantage (if that's not good advice I'd like to hear otherwise). So
> then
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 05:57, Pueblo Native wrote:
> M Harris wrote:
> > On Monday 14 May 2007 22:28, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >>> otherwise). So then, if there is no speed advantage, what's the
> >>> point in even having a 64 bit processor right now?
There does seem to be a speed difference. I
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 01:43, Petr Klíma wrote:
> Multi-core - well, we get back to software then. Most people run single
> application and only small fraction runs more than 2 CPU intensive apps
> at a time. Realizing that most common today application software is
> single thread, you don't really
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 04:19, James Knott wrote:
> Pueblo Native wrote:
> > ...
>
> I haven't heard about there being no speed advantage.
There certainly is a potential speed advantage, but you won't see it
automatically just because you switch to a 64-bit processor (or to a
64-bit OS on a CPU t
On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:11:11 +0200
Morten Bjørnsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |-Original Message-
> |From: eshsf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |> powerPC had some logic which made it possible to crunch two
> |32bit numbers simultaineously.
> |> resulting is some really impressive ope
Pueblo Native wrote:
> it seems that almost everybody I've talked to has advised me not to go
> with the 64 bit version of OpenSuse because there really is no speed
> advantage (if that's not good advice I'd like to hear otherwise). So
> then, if there is no speed advantage, what's the point in ev
|-Original Message-
|From: eshsf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> powerPC had some logic which made it possible to crunch two
|32bit numbers simultaineously.
|> resulting is some really impressive openssl performance.
|
|I don't know PowerPC in detail, but is it the one by Altivec(SIMD)?
|
On 5/15/07, Pueblo Native <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it seems that almost everybody I've talked to has advised me not to go
with the 64 bit version of OpenSuse because there really is no speed
advantage (if that's not good advice I'd like to hear otherwise). So
then, if there is no speed advanta
Hello,
On Tue, 15 May 2007 09:42:21 +0200
Morten Bjørnsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> powerPC had some logic which made it possible to crunch two 32bit numbers
> simultaineously.
> resulting is some really impressive openssl performance.
I don't know PowerPC in detail, but is it the one by Al
Pueblo Native <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> it seems that almost everybody I've talked to has advised me not to go
> with the 64 bit version of OpenSuse because there really is no speed
> advantage (if that's not good advice I'd like to hear otherwise). So
> then, if there is no speed advantage,
|64bit CPUs are faster when working with large integers (which
|is not that frequent I presume), and they are a must when your
|application needs >3GB of memory. No other advantages here.
|
Recent cpu-cores have greatly simplified pipleines compared to
pentium4,powerPC, etc.
the cores in core2d
Our experience is that x86_64 does have a speed advantage in 64bit
over 32bit -- this is for heavy compilation and running of computer algebra
==John ffitch
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
M Harris wrote:
> Although the analogy is going to be a little contrived, its something
> like
> the concept of cylinders in an internal combustion engine... there were cars
> made back in the 30s-50s with 10, 12, and 16 cylinders... but due to
> harmonics, balance, and other issues (8)
M Harris wrote:
> On Monday 14 May 2007 22:28, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>
>>> otherwise). So then, if there is no speed advantage, what's the
>>> point in even having a 64 bit processor right now?
>>>
>> Addressing large virtual address spaces and / or installing large
>> amounts of physi
On Monday 14 May 2007 22:28, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > otherwise). So then, if there is no speed advantage, what's the
> > point in even having a 64 bit processor right now?
>
> Addressing large virtual address spaces and / or installing large
> amounts of physical RAM.
>
> If you don't need one
On Monday 14 May 2007 20:23, Pueblo Native wrote:
> it seems that almost everybody I've talked to has advised me not to
> go with the 64 bit version of OpenSuse because there really is no
> speed advantage (if that's not good advice I'd like to hear
> otherwise). So then, if there is no speed adva
it seems that almost everybody I've talked to has advised me not to go
with the 64 bit version of OpenSuse because there really is no speed
advantage (if that's not good advice I'd like to hear otherwise). So
then, if there is no speed advantage, what's the point in even having a
64 bit processor
23 matches
Mail list logo
